ID vs. Abiogenesis

I am just curious as to what thinkatheist has to offer on the possibilities of intelligent design vs abiogenesis.

Remember that ID is NOT religion and doesn't even imply the existence of a deity. It is simply the idea that even the most basic theoretical form of sustained life is so complex, it couldn't possibly have started by itself without any intelligent intervention.

He copies and pastes an easily answered question containing demonstrably false premises as well as a Darwin misquote... then after being thoroughly answered and corrected, simply replies with another cookie cutter question. In both cases, very little research would have confirmed to him that his questions were both loaded with falsities, and the fact that he responded with another question, obviously not caring for an answer or to change his mind as a result of learning, demonstrates the kind of mindset that fundamentalist religious nuts tend to exude.

I don't have time right now to read all the replies before responding, so I'm sorry if my answer was already given. I will leave the debating to others who can do it better.

I just want to say that I am so grateful I have educated myself enough to dismiss your claim outright. My response in my head was, "Oh really? I don't think so." I have read the Bible and found it lacking and disturbing. I have read about intelligent design and found it frightening in its duplicity. I have sought out information about, among other topics, evolution, and knowit to be true.

Xians, please don't provide the weak statement that "Evolution is only a theory". Educate yourself between a scientific theory, and a common theory. They are vastly different. A hypothesis in science is vetted through tests, analysis, etc. Once it has been properly vetted it is considered a "scientific theory". The reason it is referred to as a "theory" is that this leaves open the possibility that some future test will either enhance or refute the theory. Otherwise it is considered as valid as any other factual statement or observation.

As a side note, Gravity, Electricity, and a host of other things we take for granted are considered "scientific theories". Hell, Electric flow has two theories - eletron flow (from positive to negative) and negative flow (aka the "Edison Theory", from negative to positive). I have first-hand knowledge of this because when I was in the USAF, we were taught electron flow. However, the Navy teaches negative flow, so all of their technical schematics describe electric flow going in the opposite direction than our technical manuals. Pretty confusing. Incidentally, I think this has changed since when I was in the military (the mid 1980s. I'm old ;) ).

Why has two theories existed for so long? Because electricity moves slightly below the speed of light, so it has been very difficult to determine which theory is right until relatively recently (electron flow wins).

So, let's dispense with this feeble argument. It is fundamentally incorrect, and any high school science student understands this.

The one thing that has always bothered me about Abiogenesis is that for it to work, there must have been some extremely simple self-replicating molecules or life forms of some sort. From what I understand, no scientist in this day and age is willing to bet against the probability of a single bacterial cell forming out of "primordial soup" -- they all say that there were some simpler forms of "life" (as yet unknown as to exactly what they are) that existed before bacteria. We know that amino acids (the building blocks for proteins) can be created (found) in the conditions we think the world was in 3+ Billion years ago. So we do have all the pieces necessary to create proteins. There are 20 amino acids involved in making proteins. A protein is made of a specific chain of amino acids that then folds in on itself and becomes a protein. The chances of a 40-amino acid protein forming by random chance is 1 in 10^53. I'd say that's considerably low. and then you have all the different proteins required for a bacteria to work at all, and having them all align and be in the same place at the same time, etc. and you're looking at really small odds.

This is why I say that no respected scientist (that i know of) will ever say that bacteria [even simple ones] were the first life on earth. My question is this: do we have *any* information about what came before bacteria other than what we theorize is there?

My point is this one: the theory of abiogenesis makes assumptions about the origins of life -- that there were replicating forms of life significantly simpler than the bacteria. In its defense, it's not like there is information to be had. However, to rule out all other options because one assumption fits your theory is bad science. Also, just because the origins of life *could* be explained by abiogenesis doesn't make the theory true.

Intelligent Design also admits the lack of information. at this point, all we can really do is theorize about what might have happened 3+ Billion years ago. My reasoning for standing for Intelligent Design is on the origin of DNA & RNA. DNA is encoded -- it contains information on how to build proteins as well as other genetic information. All coded information we know of has a source -- it didn't just pop out of nowhere (or even creep up slowly): it was made. Does information come out of random mutation?

I am not trying to prove Intelligent Design or disprove Abiogenesis. All I'd like to say is that abiogenesis makes unprovable assumptions about the origins of life. So does Intelligent Design. Why is it that whenever someone mentions the possibility of the existence of a deity of some kind, all of a sudden it's not a valid theory any more? if abiogenesis is considered scientific, then so should Intelligent Design.